Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Kronos Quartet discography/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Scorpion0422 21:49, 5 May 2009 [1].

Kronos Quartet discography edit

Nominator(s): Drmies (talk)

Featured list candidates/Kronos Quartet discography/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because after peer review it seems to be a pretty decent list, and I am interested in its improvement. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- Before I fully review, the format of the tables is not the standard used, it should be formatted as other discographies. Such as the FLs located here.--Tru co 15:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of those tables (I looked at a bunch of them before I got started) are predicated on chart success in their very layout, something which hardly applies to (contemporary) classical music: the table would be dashes for their main content. But The Make-Up discography has a different format from many others, and Neutral Milk Hotel discography is not unlike the one for Kronos. Drmies (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm going to wait for another reviewer's input before I review this, I hope you understand.--Tru co 02:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It should be noted that those two discographies wbecame Featured in late 2007. Since that time, around 50 other discographies have become Featured, albeit none of them of the same genre of music. Also, a Wikiproject has been established, WikiProject Discographies. Drmies, perhaps you could get some input from members there? Regards, Matthewedwards : Chat 03:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Started a thread. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate it. Truco referred me to the list of FL discographies, but there's a whole lot of em, and I didn't look at every single one; I certainly didn't look to see when any of them were featured. It would be helpful, in advance of any discussion on the thread you just opened, if I could get an idea of precisely which discography could function as a model, though I have to say, if it's 50 Cent discography then I don't really know what to do--the chart-heavy model simply isn't really relevant here. I went for another type of content: the verification of different elements and qualities of the record. Cannibaloki offered good suggestions in peer review, but he did not suggest that I change the format of the table, and I sure hope that it's not just the format of the table that determines the quality of an article. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examples (Video albums)

There is no rule requiring the use of a single table format, but for the FLC reviewers exists.

Year	Video details	Notes
2000	In Accord Released: 5 September 2000 Label: Image Entertainment Format: DVD	Filmed in 1998; contains pieces by John Zorn, Perotin, and Alfred Schnittke, as well as Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze"
2002	Kronos on Stage Released: 5 September 2000 Label: Image Entertainment Format: DVD	Contains Black Angels and Ghost Opera

Title	Released	Label	Format	Notes
In Accord	5 September 2000	Image Entertainment	DVD	Filmed in 1998; contains pieces by John Zorn, Perotin, and Alfred Schnittke, as well as Jimi Hendrix's "Purple Haze."
Kronos on Stage	13 August 2002	Image Entertainment	DVD	Contains Black Angels and Ghost Opera.

I support the second, as well as the whole work. Canniba loki 06:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support either one, but mostly the first one because it is what other discographies are commonly formatted as.--Tru co 15:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the particular layout of the table stands in the way then I'll gladly change it--but before I do, I'd like to hear if there is consensus on this, since I'm sure you realize it's an awful job... Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It kinda is, in a way. Just because its about a different genre of work shouldn't make it different from other formats/layouts.--Tru co 15:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the first time you referred me to some other discographies I didn't know what to look for, since a lot of those discographies were not like the ones above; instead, they were concerned with chart positions. In other words, I didn't know what you were pointing at, and that's why I remarked on genre. Now I know. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tables have to change, because you're arranging according to year and not title. The first column is mostly the one the list is arranged with. Plus having a uniform layout between all Discographies is sort of a push towards a better usability. User Drmies should state what he'll do, so that the nomination would show progress.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 15:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I have to do, it's simple; I'll follow the first format. As far as progress is concerned, as you can tell from the dates I've been waiting to hear what the desired format is. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I probably won't support or oppose the nomination, but I have a few questions about the list. Why are the names of composers and musicians linked to within the "Title" field? Has Floodplain been released; if not shouldn't it have the "Released" field state "2009 (forthcoming)" like 2081. Also, shouldn't Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters link here? Alex Douglas (talk) 06:55, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They were linked as a leftover from the original, which was merely a list on the main article. I've taken care of those links now. Thanks for the Floodplain note; I've corrected that. The album is in pre-order and I'm waiting anxiously. ;) Drmies (talk) 21:03, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I suggest the external links are transformed into generic citations, since almost all of the information seems to be sourced from there and is the only way anyone can verify the releases, catalogs, dates etc. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 06:28, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no--I got the release dates and catalog numbers from the Nonesuch website, and some of the others (soundtracks, etc) from Amazon whenever I could. The Allmusic list only has six titles, the Strings article is old and thus incomplete, and the Parker book has a bibliography, not a discography. I'll gladly make a generic note to the Nonesuch website, but there again, there's a difficulty: look at this, the entry for the Sigur Ros CD--it has the catalog number but not the date; the release dates are in the "ALSO FROM KRONOS QUARTET" menu on the right, and I wouldn't know how to cite that. What would you suggest I do? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was really talking about Kronos Quartet on Nonesuch Records and Kronos Quartet Website - discography. They seem to cover very much of the information provided so I figured they were the original source for some of the content. Overall, anything used as a source should be referenced. In regards to the release dates, you can simply cite this and in the reference add something like "See Releases section on right". Readers aren't stupid and they will understand were to look at. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 22:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I see now--I confused Bibliography with External links. Now it makes sense, sorry. But you wouldn't want a note for every single entry, right? I'll see what I can do and what looks good. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, that would be ridiculous and a waste of time. Most discographies separate their references in "General" which are used all throughout the table, and "Specific" for the more common inline citations. For example, see Kaiser Chiefs discography#References. Do U(knome)? ^yes..._{or no} 00:53, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "general" note on that model--thanks. I'm not happy with the vagueness of the Amazon reference (and I really dislike having to use that as a source), but that's the way it is. As time goes by, some more of this information will be filled in. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:34, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed the tables, all of them, and turned them into the preferred format. That was a very lengthy and tedious job...I need a beer. Now, the only place where I was a bit at a loss is the "contributions" section--there's a ton of info in the second cell (I hope I did it consistently for all of them, but right now I can't proofread anymore) but I can't rightly figure out how to do it and make it look better. I'll get to the reference(s) for the catalog info as soon as I can. Thanks for your feedback. Drmies (talk) 05:10, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made the tables sortable, if u don't mind. In any case wether sortable or not I support the promotion of this list to FL status.--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 08:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks--but see note below by Chris: can you make the third column "unsortable"? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - is there any reason for the "notes" column to be sortable (I can't see anyone wanting to sort the notes into alphabetical order)? Also, the columns should retain consistent widths across all the tables. Oh, and the "contributions" table has a stray extra cell on the line for "Heat", which is making a very thin extra column appear at the far right -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- (In reverse order:) Thanks--it was the next one, actually. I'm glad you noticed it; after I got done with it I couldn't see straight anymore. I see that the width is not perfectly consistent, but I don't know why that is. In all honesty, I barely know how these tables work; if one of you could have a look that would be great (the second column has a fixed width and the first is nothing but years, so I figured they'd all end up the same way--plus, I copied and pasted them all from the one up on this page). No, they don't need to be sortable by notes, but I don't know how to fix that--perhaps Diaa, who was kind enough to make them sortable in the first place, can help here. Thanks for your comments! Drmies (talk) 19:50, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

done--Diaa abdelmoneim (talk) 22:07, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both for the sorting and the partial unsorting. Drmies (talk) 23:14, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Think I've sorted the table column width disparity issue, hope it looks OK. I support the FLC -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks great, thanks! Drmies (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

"a string quartet playing "-->a string quartet that plays
"The quartet's music is released on "-->The quartet's music has been released on
"by composers like"-->by composers such as
"their music covers a who's who of 20th century composers, as one critic phrased it in 1998." "who's who" is a bit loose, can we have a quote for that?
"besides contributing to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams"-->and has contributed to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams
"Their interest in collaborations is evident in their contributions to albums by other artists," This is WP:OR; it needs to be rephrased.
"ranked in the "-->ranked on the
"The quartet won a Grammy for the 2003 album Lyric Suite (music by Alban Berg), and were the" Inconsistent subject verbs, you use "has been" but "were the" (has is singular, were is plural).
In the notes, single sentence fragments should not have periods at the end.
Can you link all notable works, not just the ones that have articles? There is nothing wrong with red links. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Publication titles (newspapers, magazines, journals) in the references should be in italics. If you're using {{cite web}} or {{cite news}}, use the work= field for the title of the paper instead of publisher=. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I've taken care of all your comments, incl. the wikilinks--there's a lot of red on the page now (I've been working on individual articles for the albums, but that's a lot of work). Oh, I disagree (grammatically) on your 2nd remark and have not changed that. (And the who's who thing, that was a quote--I put quotation marks around it.) Thanks for that ref template bit--if only I'd realized that before... I haven't yet taken care of your sentence fragment comment but I'll get on it. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Oppose by Tru co

Lead

'The discography of the Kronos Quartet, a string quartet playing contemporary classical music founded by violinist David Harrington in 1973, includes numerous albums, compilations, and contributions to others' releases.' || 1)'playing' --> that plays 2)'numerous' should be replaced with the actual values

done

'Since 1978 the quartet has been based in San Francisco, California.' || 1)Comma after '1978'

I disagree--it's a short phrase and a comma is not required.

That does not matter, all grammar rules apply to all complete sentences. A pause is needed after 1978, this is for all statements like this.--Tru co 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to explain to you that that is not a grammatical rule. At best, it's a rule of usage that after an introductory clause, such as a prepositional phrase, a comma can be applied. Please don't try to tell me that such comma usage is part of grammar, since it isn't--at most its style, and all the style manuals agree with me here: after a short introductory phrase one is not required to use a comma. Drmies (talk) 01:45, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

'Early recordings by the quartet contain contemporary classical music and adaptations of more popular music, such as jazz and even rock and roll.' || 1)Unlink Jazz and Rock and Roll, they are common genres and do not need to be linked 2)remove 'even' its POV

done--though I don't see why I should de-link these.

'Since the 1980s, and especially with the release of Cadenza on the Night Plain, written as a collaboration between composer Terry Riley and the quartet, much of the quartet's repertoire and album releases contain music written especially for them, by composers like Terry Riley, Kevin Volans, Henryk Górecki, and Ástor Piazzolla; their music covers a who's who of 20th century composers, as one critic phrased it in 1998.' || This just needs to be reworded, its a run-on (possibly split)

Sorry, it's not a run-on (note the semicolon). But I'll split it.

'Kronos has recorded five soundtracks (music composed by Philip Glass, Clint Mansell, and Lee Brooks), including the score for the 1998 music for the silent movie Dracula, besides contributing to the soundtracks of five other movies, including Heat and 21 Grams.' || 1)No need to state the composers here 2)What does 'including the score' mean? 3)I recommend splitting this sentence or rewording it as well.

I'm keeping Philip Glass in because this is, after all, the lead to an article and should state something about the importance of the subject. Philip Glass is one of the most influential composers of the 20th century, and that they recorded his music on such things as soundtracks goes to notability. The sentence is reworded.

That does not matter, unless you give composers for all albums mentioned in the lead, then you can keep it, if not its best to remove it per consistency purposes.--Tru co 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not all of them are among the most influential composers of the 20th century. In a lead you pick the most salient, the most significant details. You don't give Billboard rankings for each album, but if there's a #1 you'd mention that. I left Philip Glass in there for the same reason.

'Their interest in collaborations is evident in their contributions to albums by other artists, especially pop artists, such as Joan Armatrading, Dave Matthews Band, Andy Summers, Nelly Furtado, and Nine Inch Nails.' || The first part is POV, how do you know its their interest? Remove sentence or reword it.

done (see Dabomb's comments above)

'The quartet won a Grammy for the 2003 album Lyric Suite (music by Alban Berg), and were the performing artist for Steve Reich's Grammy-winning 1988 composition Different Trains.' || This is really not needed because its not in the main list/tables itself.

done

Table/list

The notes need to be copyedit because some of the notes are not complete sentences and the periods need to be removed from them.

Dabomb said the same thing. I'd like to know why--why do sentence fragments not require periods? In any published piece of writing they do. Moreover, it'll give rise to inconsistencies; some cells (like the third) have two fragments. Surely they should be separated by something, and if that something is, for instance, a semicolon, then you have punctuation in the middle but not at the end. Sentence fragments in tables are acceptable since information needs to be economical, and rephrasing all fragments into complete sentences is awkward and wordy. Look at Music of Bill Evans--two fragments, then a balanced compound sentence containing two independent clauses. Turning a fragment like "With Jim Hall and Eddie Gomez" into a sentence would be very wordy.

Okay, which is why we're telling you to remove the periods. In all featured lists, its encouraged to do so because they are not complete sentences and a statement like "It was great." is not acceptable. Yes you're right its too wordy to make into complete sentences, which is why the solution is removing the periods.

So, look at "Compositions by Thelonious Monk. With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)." Do you want me to remove both periods, and produce "Compositions by Thelonious Monk With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" ? OK, so just the last, "Compositions by Thelonious Monk. With Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" ? That looks weird also. In this case, since both fragments are short, I could change to "Compositions by Thelonious Monk; with Ron Carter (bass improvisation)" but that doesn't work for all the entries--it won't work very well for the next one. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The first note, although it is a quote, is used in POV-ish manner, possibly paraphrase the quote or remove it.

With all due respect, if a critic says something like that about your first release, it's pretty notable. The notes in this discography also substitute for the lack of individual articles on the albums, and so they have both evaluation (all from RS, I may add) and information.

Yes, but the section is for notes about the album not critical reception.--Tru co 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It says "notes"--and many of them have "critical reception" (which is evaluation). If Leonard Feather gives five stars to an album of Evans songs recorded by a string quartet, is that not a "note about the album" and an evaluation to boot? As I said elsewhere, since there are no individual articles for these albums I tried to collect information from reliable sources, and many of these notes are reviews, yes. Now, if you want me to go through and take all of that information out, that would be sad. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

References

Billboard, the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Chicago Sun-Times, TIME, Chicago Tribune, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, Boston Globe, The Independent, and Washington Post are all literary published works, they need to be in italics.--Tru co 20:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See Dabomb's comments above. However, "literary published works" they are not. I've moved all the newspapers but not Billboard, since their website is not called "Billboard," and the same goes for a few other websites

You're right, Nielsen is the publisher but the work is from Billboard magazine, which need italics. So Billboard goes in the work field. --Tru co 00:40, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The work is from Billboard magazine, it is not Billboard magazine. But I'll go ahead and change it. Drmies (talk) 00:56, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This isn't really a requirement, but can something be done about all of those redlinks? Since they are a notable group, it makes sense that all of their albums should have pages. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 15:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was told (above) that I should wikilink the most important albums (kind of difficult to decide): "Can you link all notable works, not just the ones that have articles? There is nothing wrong with red links." So I did. I've gotten to work on that, but I don't want to create a ton of stubs; something like this one, Kronos Quartet Performs Alfred Schnittke: The Complete String Quartets, took quite a bit of time. Drmies (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Here, Winter Was Hard, is another one. And another: Kronos Quartet Plays Sigur Rós. You see, I'm on it! Drmies (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - There's nothing wrong with redlinks. Per WP:RED, "a red link should be allowed to remain in an article if it links to a term that could plausibly sustain an article, but for which there exists no candidate article, or article section, under any name." Dabomb87 (talk) 21:33, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - One more redlink gone: Terry Riley: Cadenza on the Night Plain. That took hours! Drmies (talk) 04:34, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Contemporary classical music that was founded by Harrington? The opening sentence is also a long snake. Solve this ambiguity problem by splitting with a semicolon and making two related statements.
"others' releases": releases by other artists? groups? "similar groups"? Unsure.
"The quartet's music is released on Nonesuch Records since 1985"—wrong tense.

The opening indicates that the whole lead needs a proper copy-edit. It's short, so surely there are word-nerds who are willing. I agree with Scorpion that the red links are obstructive. If you want a wishlist of articles, at least write stubs for them and there's the next mini project to shepherd them towards post-stub status. Unusual for international date format to be used for a US-base group, but I don't care a toss. Tony (talk) 05:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've rearranged per your desire. I hope the "contributions" bit is more clear now; I appreciate you playing the devil's advocate. The tense in the Nonesuch sentence is in fact correct (I am a word-nerd, professionally). The international date format (from your "toss" I gather you're British) is becoming more and more accepted in the US and is, for instance, recommended by the MLA--thanks for noticing. I've heard different opinions now on the red links; I am inclined to agree with you, but I'm simply trying to follow orders here. Maybe I'll just find a middle way and remove half of them, and I'll write a few more stubs over the next few days. The problem with stubs, though, is that it lessens the likelihood of such an article being eligible for DYK status (five days from creation, an almost biblical measure), and after I got one for Terry Riley: Requiem for Adam I've become greedy for more. Drmies (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose

- Caption does not capitalise "quartet" per other uses of the name. Consistency please.
  - OK.
- Also, and this is a guess, Warszawa is Warsaw in English? Could we use the English name (assuming I'm correct of course!)?
  - Yes it is. Yes we can.
- "...as one critic phrased it in..." - prefer something like "... as one critic noted in...".
  - OK.
- Perhaps worth emphasising that the 1998 score for Dracula was actually for a very much older movie?
  - "Silent movie" would suggest that, but OK.
- "...have ranked on the Billboard charts;[3] the 1992 album Pieces of Africa reached #1 in the Top World Albums chart.[4]..." perhaps just a personal thing but the semicolon (to me) kind of implies a run-on with relevance to the previous clause. There's no clear connection between the Billboard result and the Top World Albums chart.
  - Maybe that's personal; a semicolon separates independent clauses, which is what these are.

Changed "Billboard charts" to "various Billboard charts"; individual entries (in "notes") identify which charts.

- Notes aren't necessarily notes, some of them seem to be selections of criticisms. Be clear about what this column is used for.
  - Those are notes too, in my opinion. Note=short piece of information.
- Order citations numerically, e.g. turn [20][21][7] into [7][20][21]. Check other instances.
  - OK. I have nothing but time.
- "...for the Quartet..." - why is this particular instance capitalised while other instances aren't?
- "...proceeds of all sales to go to ..." a tense change here. Other notes were in the past tense.
- "...composers incl. Carlos Paredes..." no need to suddenly start abbreviating words.
- Many, many redlinked albums, but not Mugam Sayagi: Music of Franghiz Ali-Zadeh - why not this one?
- Same with all three compilation albums.
  - Because I was told explicitly (see the discussion above!) that redlinks are fine and that the most notable need to be redlinked. The Mugam Sayagi is not, in my opinion, that notable, though please feel free to argue that it is. I'm just going to go ahead and redlink them all--and next thing you know, someone else is going to complain about the redlinks. Well, soit.
- For sortable tables, make sure linked items are linked everywhere, e.g. Philip Glass. Once the table is reordered there's no guarantee that the linked version is the first encountered by the reader.
  - OK.
- Not sure about the sorting by Soundtrack details - e.g. it's sorted by the first name, including individuals - which ordinarily would be sorted by surname... not a blanket fail for me but just think about what we could do to make it sort as "expected"...
  - I don't understand--it's either sorted by year or by (movie) title. Oh, you're talking about contributors. I don't know what to do--the tables I made weren't even sorted in the first place, and chronological is good enough for me. I'll do whatever folks here tell me to do, I guess.
- Please forgive my ignorance but in ref 31 you have "p. 84ff.." - can you explain what this means?!
  - It means "more than one page"--or "and the following pages", as ff has it. Here, it really means I didn't have all the bibliographical information.
- Ref 60 needs an en-dash for the page range. Check all others.
  - Will do. I replaced it, but I can't check the others, since my eyes don't see that difference. Dabomb has some kind of bot to do it; maybe they can set that free again on the page.
- Odd combination of p. and pp. for page ranges. I would hazard a guess it's our inglorious inconsistency between the citation templates, but could you check?
  - I will; chances are that's what it is. I'll check. One of the pp.'s was an error. Our system is inconsistent in some places, in others just f**ed up. Thanks for your comments. Hey, I have yet to hear anyone say anything nice--someone could have commented that this is a discography of 80+ items with with 70+ references, all in templates, many from print sources. Drmies (talk) 02:38, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Rambling Man (talk) 19:33, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support a very comprehensive list, but we still have a bare URL in ref 6 and a hyphen, instead of a en-dash, in ref 62. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Dabomb took care of the one (thanks again...!), I took care of the other, and I added two more references for that album. Drmies (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.